Prime Minister, David Cameron, has confirmed that the government will bring in a tax break for married couples before the next election in 2015.
The proposals suggest that around four million couples could benefit from a £1,000 transferable tax allowance from 2015.
Under the scheme, married couples on basic rate tax pay as well as around 15,000 couples in civil partnerships, would be eligible to claim this tax allowance.
So, that's near enough 4 million at £200 - because a £1,000 transferable allowance is not worth £1,000, it's worth the tax on it - which is £200.
And that comes to £800 million that this might cost. But let's be generous - some won't claim it (most likely those on low income). So maybe it will only really cost £600 million.
The bedroom tax is estimated to affect 660,000 people in the UK - two thirds of whom have a disability. The total notional saving will be around £500 million.
In other words this allowance that's a sop to a 1950s view of Britain is to be paid for by disabled people, children who're forced from schools and by the disruption of communities.
That's neoliberal Britain.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
… and speaking of the disabled http://www.michaelmeacher.info/weblog/2012/09/how-many-hundreds-has-atos-healthcare-killed-so-far/ really everyone needs to read this. It’s not simply what MP Meacher says, though that’s alarming enough, it’s the 58 (so far) responses which, for the uninitiated, will be eye-opening. What’s happening is appalling, and Labour’s purely cosmetic gestures won’t make a scrap of difference.
Totally agree. But isn’t it also true that once all the administrative costs are taken into account the bedroom tax won’t save anything – and is one of the most inept government measures in ever made. Aimed to save money, it’ll end up COSTING money.
I agree
But I only needed take face value to show this
When admin costs are taken not account both policies ate much worse but the inequality would be even more stark
Whatever gives you the impression it was to save money ?
If they wanted to “save” money they could end the rampant tax/vat avoidance and evasion.
It was, and is, a blatant attack on people with little by a government of people with loads.
Now, to the NHS, where I have been told that the physio that I used to receive free for my spinal problem (ruptured discs) is now going to cost £38/session (private physiotherapists now, on doctor referral).
Mind you, this is the local hospital where they have closed emergency paediatrics and injured/seriously ill children now have to make the trip to Milton Keynes (25 miles).
Free at the point of treatment seems to be being stretched a lot now.
The extraordinary thing in this is that surely the only governmental policy objective of such a tax would be to encourage marriage. But at what cost? This £200 per annum is going to go mostly to those who are married already, and to those who would have married anyway. There are around 250,000 marriages per year in the UK. Is it conceivable that the rate of marriage can be increased by any more than infinitesimal amount by the prospect of £200 year? If we generously assumed that 1 in 25 would be swayed to get married, then this would give us 10,000 extra marriages…at the cost of £60,000 per marriage. I myself suspect that it would be closer to £240,000 or above, and all for an almost imperceptible sociological shift, dwarfed by historical trends. This is in fact an extremely expensive party political broadcast on behalf of the Tory party – “We’re really hot on marriage” – paid for by all of us – but with a message that isn’t even important to many (except hardcore reactionaries who think the world is going to hell in a handcart because the marriage rate is falling – How many do you know? How many do you think there are?), and disappointing to most who would take the question seriously (I mean, is this the best you could do? How about really supporting family life, via benefits and resources for people with children? Or serious money off the tax, if you must?). So what price each vote won?
The stupid party! Does anyone need more proof?
Why are you suggesting that the Poor will not claim this benefit? Are people suggesting that stay at home mothers are not okay. Do you feel that everyone will want or be capable to have a job.
“Ed Miliband’s party said around two-thirds of married couples would not save money under the plans, including higher rate taxpayers and couples in which both partners earn more than the personal allowance.”
So all I can see the people who have one parent working with a mother at home will get a little bit of help. THis also applies to the Gays as well.
Marriage is a good thing. Many children need to security that a marriage gives them. There have been many articles that from people who talk of the upset of being from a home when the marriage ends.
Take up rates are always low amongst those most in need
But let’s be clear this has nothing to do with children
It’s bizarre, tax complicating mantra that’s driven this
And people will see it as that
http://www.greenbenchesuk.com/2013/09/nhs-rip-21-medical-treatmentsoperations.html